Rogers Media uses cookies for personalization, to customize its online advertisements, and for other purposes. Learn more or change your cookie preferences. Rogers Media supports the Digital Advertising Alliance principles. By continuing to use our service, you agree to our use of cookies.

We use cookies (why?) You can change cookie preferences. Continued site use signifies consent.

Coulter, live and loud in Calgary

At the Red and White Club on the grounds of Calgary’s McMahon Stadium tonight, more than 900 attendees gave Ann Coulter a remarkable, thunderous ovation. But they cheered, I would almost swear, with even greater volume for Ezra Levant, co-organizer of Coulter’s tour. I’m a friend of Ezra’s, but I had never seen him speak on home turf before. The love was palpable and astonishing. I suppose he is part of the city’s image, the legend it tells of itself, at this point.

And—chalk this up to bias if you like—he gives a heck of a speech. The stubbornest Stalinist alive would have been stirred by his fierce defence of strong free-speech norms as a social truce in which all have a stake. He made a particular point of noting that women, ethnic minorities, and gays and lesbians would never have attained civil rights if they had waited around for the Establishment to endow them out of the goodness of its heart. They could not have won an open power struggle; they had to engage in persuasive speech that, at first, offended contemporary sensibilities. Is it cynical and manipulative for Ezra to go into that territory? Maybe a little. But is what he says true and relevant? Indubitably.

The component of Ezra’s introduction for Coulter that rang a little false was the civic self-congratulation. “This is Calgary, not Ottawa,” he bellowed, inducing positively demented applause. “We’re interested in a diversity of ideas, debated vigorously and freely. Places like the University of Ottawa talk about diversity, but they don’t actually mean it, do they?” The fact is, Calgary’s anti-everything left managed a pretty good turnout, perhaps fifty strong, and they did no less to try to interrupt and drown out Coulter’s talk, and perhaps more on the whole, than the U of Ottawa students. But they faced a much tougher tactical situation: a free-standing, isolated venue on a hillside, virtually a fortress; crowd-control gates and wooden barricades on the exterior; and a whole squadron of bicycle and foot police, perhaps upwards of a dozen.

Uncowed, the antis attempted to rush the main doors of the building as Ezra was winding up his intro, spiderwebbing the glass with boot damage, and they battered the exterior windows of the club throughout Coulter’s main talk. Tomorrow morning’s news story may be “Calgary gets right what Ottawa could not”; I wonder, however, how things would have looked if Coulter had visited Calgary first and caught the Cowtown police less well-prepared.

(Incidentally, a pro-tip for the two guys who tried to dress as Klansmen: real KKK outfits have separate hoods. If you go for the one-piece look, you are not a scary symbol of race hatred: you are a scary symbol of the laziness of six-year-olds at Halloween.)

Eventually She came out. I paid little attention (and some of you will be relieved to hear it) to Coulter’s litany of familiar one-liners; I’m not sure anyone paid the words much heed, including Ann Coulter herself. As the thrumming of the protest outside grew louder and began to be punctuated with blows and crashes, she made sure to keep one eye in the direction of the stairway, doubtless ready to make a hasty exit behind the curtain at any moment. The atmosphere of danger, and her consciousness of it, made her seem curiously vulnerable, even as she vaporized hostile interlocutors in the Q&A session. Coulter, if you’re wondering, and you are, is more attractive in person than on camera. She is thus something of a contrast, in this regard, to Sarah Palin. (Meow!) Dame’s not my type, but you find out the second you write about Ann Coulter that she has many open admirers, and a LOT more haters who are unadmitted admirers?unadmitted perhaps even to themselves.

She really is a gifted comic. It was unfortunate that she didn’t bring Calgary new material, but this was a case where the medium truly was the message. During the Q&A, a young female U of Calgary student stood to say that there are “Jesus Was a Muslim” signs all over campus and she isn’t sure how she should react. Coulter, with a simple “Huh” and a nonplussed look, had the room in stitches.

Still, the more interesting action was outside all night?and I don’t mean the rioting, but the small-group discussions amongst smokers, latecomers who couldn’t get in, curious U of C campus-dwellers, and stray protesters. Here, on the grass, ordinary people talked sincerely to each other without punchlines or slogans or sneering. They seemed to be a different species altogether from the formidable, mantis-like Coulter and her mesmerizing blonde mane.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Post navigation

Coulter, live and loud in Calgary

Hey, I was there too! She really toned things down, IMHO. For example, when one of the questioners wearing a hiqab asked about female political oppression, Ann could have easily asked the woman to look in the mirror to see proof of female subservience.

Though I think Miss Coulter would probably have used less eloquent language.

Neil from Calgary on March 26, 2010 at 1:20 am

Calgarians have such rich imaginations when they fantasize about how they'd put people in their place with just the right comeback. Thank goodness it's an impulse rarely acted on or the place would be decidedly more insufferable than it is.

MacLean's Regular on March 26, 2010 at 10:59 am

This bugs me.

If you want to give Neil a hard time for his comments, great. But, I really don't get the generalized hate for Calgary (or any other city), and I say this as someone who lives in Edmonton so I know a bit about hating on Calgary.

Iccyh on March 26, 2010 at 12:37 pm

I thought I was being complimentary. I've always found Calgary to be a civil place. Even when I've worn my niqab…

Sorry if I misread, but I took "decidedly more insufferable than it is" as implying that the place was already insufferable :P

Iccyh on March 26, 2010 at 5:07 pm

Coulter is an excellent representative for an institution like the University of Calgary. Both in terms of implicit attitudes and academic integrity. Don'tcha think!!!!

distinction on March 27, 2010 at 2:29 pm

its either hijab (covering of the hair) or niqab (covering of the hair along with the face except the yes) they're different

R.K. on March 29, 2010 at 5:22 pm

I would really like to know just how many of her audience were of the over 80,000 Americans who live in Calgary and who were the federally elected politicians who were there who endorsed her poisonous position by their very presence. Poor Calgary is really getting a bad name when it could very well be the non-citizens who are the most vocal and loudly supportive when these questionable Republicans come to partake of the money bin.

from what I saw and heard (as people settled in at around 7ish a couple of guys near me chanted the first few lines of the star spangled banner), I`d say about 50 to 75.

Neil from Calgary on March 26, 2010 at 2:37 am

900 people is maybe one tenth of one percent of Calgary's population. Yeah, Calgary is probably generally more conservative than other places in the country but it isn't like people showing up for Coulter is at all reflective of Calgary as a whole.

Iccyh on March 26, 2010 at 5:06 am

800 people attended in London. If you accept prescott's theory, and do the math, London is more than twice as conservative as Calgary.

matt on March 26, 2010 at 8:02 am

What's the percentage of Americans living in London? That was my question (not a theory!). In Calgary, it is approximatley 1 out of every 12 citizens is American, and (I'm guessing) probably the majority are Republican, so it would stand to reason that this is a reason why Bush, Palin and now Coulter and who knows who else always make Calgary one of their stops. I've also read that a number of people attended in Calgary because of the fuss in Ottawa, but actually left half-way through because it didn't hold their interest (CTV report today)

Everyone should have the right to free speech and if deemed offensive to be challenged with other thoughts and ideas.
That's the intelligent and democratic way. It's nice to the University of Calgary have the good sense and intelligence to have Ann Coulter speak whether one agrees with her views or not. Unlike the left-wing student goons and faculty at the University of Ottawa . This also reminfds me of that cesspool of left-wiing radicalism and hate – York University in Toronto. Students are not taught how to think but what to think in these left-wing dominatred univeristies. There is more intolerance and hate coming from these leftists and faculty than whatever comes from Anne Coulter's mouth.

Your reply is a perfect example of the intolerance, name-calling, and hatred that is so very telling of one's upbringing and education. I would gather that you are a HUGE fan of coulter, o'reilly, limbaugh and their ilk – all just very sad hate-filled individuals looking to make money by manipulating and stirring up those not well-endowed with adequate brainpower and therefore not realizing that they are being played for fools. Goebbels was so right, it would seem.

So glad to read your comments. Apparently you did not read the first sentence of my statement. You seem to have closed your mind to what you want to hear. What is intolerant about everbody's right to free speech and thought no matter how offensive? What are you afraid of? Are you so insecure that you can't fight back with your own ideas and opinions without censoring anyone with whom you disagree. Apparently Goebbels is taught in left-wing universities as well. Who Knew? And no, I don't particualrly subscribe to everything that comes ou of Coulter's mouth. Unlike you and your socialst friends, I'm not afraid of her. But thanks for asking. Ken <DIV></DIV> From: notifications@intensedebatemail.comTo: kenrowan@hotmail.comSubject: prescott replied to your comment on Coulter, live and loud in Calgary

If everyone has a right to free speech then let's not impose any double standards on anyone. Next time a bunch of radical Muslims want to talk about how much they hate the west, lets not call it "inciting hatred", lets call it Freedom of speech, and leave it at that.

If Anne has the right to spread ignorance and hatred, then so does everyone else. It goes both ways. Free speech for one radical=free speech for another.

Thoughtful on March 27, 2010 at 3:55 pm

Now you're finally getting it. Islamofascists have always hated the west.I'd rather know what people are thinking whether its positive or negative. By trying to shut someone up does not give youor me the opportunity do make a decision as to whether we agree or disagree and we can respond in kind with our ownthoughts and opinions. No one has the right not to be offended. As a Catholic I'm offended nearlyonce a month by the nonsense some individuals say about Christianity. I'm secure enough to deal with. I dont' need some fascist kangaroo court such as the so-called Human rights Commissions to get revenge. God Bless <DIV>Ken, Toronto</DIV> From: notifications@intensedebatemail.comTo: kenrowan@hotmail.comSubject: Thoughtful replied to your comment on Coulter, live and loud in Calgary

Everyone has a right to be heard, just like a bunch of students mobilizing so that the administration of a university hears them saying they don't want Ann Coulter and her populist dribble. Long live grassroots democracy…except when it's against the right right?

d.l.simms on March 29, 2010 at 9:35 am

d.i. simms: “The right to be heard” as you put it, should not include the threat of physical violence, verbal abuse (gutter language),damage to property such as smashing in a glass door (paid for by tax-payers), setting off afire alarm andphysically preventig other students from entering the lecture hall (fascist bullying). Is this what you call the “right to be heard”? Common sense would tell you this is nothing but intimidation and Nazi-Communist (no difference in terms) goon tactics. Ken Rowan A Moderate <DIV></DIV> From: notifications@intensedebatemail.comTo: kenrowan@hotmail.comSubject: d.l.simms replied to your comment on Coulter, live and loud in Calgary

The fact that Ann was able to speak at U of C has nothing to do with it being open-minded and U of O being intolerant. It just as to do with the preparedness of the local law enforcement (and maybe the organizers as well). There was a stronger police presence and a better organized venue so the protestors that showed up in Calgary were not able to stop the event. If the same presence was at Ottawa Ann would have been able to speak there as well. The university itself is not to blame for the Ottawa event being cancelled as they didn't tell Ann she couldn't speak, nor did they decide it was to dangerous for the event to continue – that was the call of either her bodyguard or Ottawa police (it isn't clear).

Anon on March 29, 2010 at 12:11 pm

Anon: I somewhat agree. But the fact that these student goonsphysically threatened her, called her abusive names, ripped her publishedbooks apart, set off a fire alarm, andsmashed a glass door panel(payed for by we tax-payers),and blocked people from attending her speechbefore the school officials didisconducive to violent behaviour which in part led to the cancellation of her speech. Hardly a peaceful democratic protest. <DIV></DIV> From: notifications@intensedebatemail.comTo: kenrowan@hotmail.comSubject: Anon replied to your comment on Coulter, live and loud in Calgary

Please keep your opinion to yourself. Hope you will live in those countries like Iran, Irag, Saudi Arabia …. or North Korea, Russia, Cuba rather than in US. Then you will taste what thier systems would like and that will keep your big mouth shut.

Eugene on March 26, 2010 at 3:22 pm

Way to spread more ignorance. My hats off to you.

Thoughtful on March 27, 2010 at 3:58 pm

I am not a citizen of Canada. For which I daily praise God, before praying for my son in law who is in what everywhere but Canada would be called an Army.

I live in New Zealand. I was born there. We can speak our minds here. We do not just mutter "it's poison" and run away. (Except in the capital, where the nutty socialists still miss the thieving control freak we threw out at the last election).

I have seen, in the last week, more frank hatred directed at Ms Coulter than I she has ever done in her life. Is the fact that she is (a) funny (b) blond (c) scarily smart (d) refuses to wear the Canuck Hajib if jeans and hoodie challenging you all?

Get some confidence You are not in some cosseted kindergarten. For adults, good speech drives out bad speech.

"This is Calgary, not Ottawa,” he bellowed, inducing positively demented applause. “We're interested in a diversity of ideas, debated vigorously and freely. Places like the University of Ottawa talk about diversity, but they don't actually mean it, do they"

Wonder if they would've felt the same way about Galloway – guess we'll never get a chance to find out. Seriously if this corrosive harridan[ nice turn of phrase – whose was it?] has a right to free speech why not George? i know, i know he's a terrorist enabler…cept he's never been actually charged with anything..but then we are living in an age that adores guilt by association
. I'm only passingly familiar with Coulter. [ it's those Caligula eyes that put me off] Is she really so formidable CC? I'd give a lot to hear her go head to head with GG, who i know is formidable.

kcm on March 26, 2010 at 1:36 am

"And—chalk this up to bias if you like—he gives a heck of a speech. The stubbornest Stalinist alive would have been stirred by his fierce defence of strong free-speech norms as a social truce in which all have a stake. "

Where stood your friend Ezra on the Galloway kerfuffle? I forget now, was he for free speech for everyone then or not?

kcm on March 26, 2010 at 1:41 am

I don't think anybody in Calgary would try to shutdown GG's speech. They've had plenty of lefties come through that town over the years, and while people might protest, they certainly wouldn't shut it down. The right and left in Calgary would be screaming bloody murder.

Galloway financially supporter the terrorist organization, Hamas. He was not banned from entering Canada, just advise that he may have broken some Canadian laws and faced possibly detaining.

Ryan on March 26, 2010 at 12:40 pm

Sounds like a hate crime.

The Boss on March 26, 2010 at 9:08 am

"Galloway financially supporter the terrorist organization, Hamas. He was not banned from entering Canada, just advise that he may have broken some Canadian laws and faced possibly detaining."

Galloway certainly was effectively banned from entering Canada..".Galloway financially supporter the terrorist organization, Hamas." Way to prove my point. Do you have actual evidence, or is mere hearsay, or trial by media the conservative standard these days. GG has done and said some foolish and occasionally disgusting things, but last i heard being an outspoken fool still isn't a crime – luckily for Coulter.

I'm sure she'd give Galloway a run for his money. At least it would be more equal than that bunch of fascist goons physically threatening and verbaly abusing Coulter at the left-wing dominated University of Alberta. Fascism, communism- it's the same in that it's the few governing the many by terror and intimidation.

I'm sorry. My statement above should read the left-wing University of Ottawa. Kudos to the University of Calagary for allowing free speech to take place. You don.r shut somebody up because you disiagree with ther view. You challenge with better views or ideas. That's the intelligent and democratic way. Not the fascist or communist way as practised on most Canadian campuses to-day, unfortunately..

Here, on the grass, ordinary people talked sincerely to each other without punchlines or slogans or sneering. They seemed to be a different species altogether from the formidable, mantis-like Coulter and her mesmerizing blonde mane.

Couldn't agree more. I originally had no desire to go, but after Tuesday I made a last-minute decision to attend. A prior commitment caused me to arrive late, and I couldn't get in.

Fortunately, the fascinating scene outside made the visit worthwhile.

Crit_Reasoning on March 26, 2010 at 1:40 am

I'm curious: what convinced you she was worth seeing?

Iccyh on March 26, 2010 at 5:11 am

Curiosity, mostly, and the free speech issue.

Crit_Reasoning on March 26, 2010 at 10:40 am

A tough call to make….

On the one hand you can demonstrate your support for free speech, at the cost of parting with some of your own cash (a portion of which provides a financial reward to Coulter) and possibly being seen to support her views and/or method of sharing her views.

On the other hand you keep your cash, possibly denying Coulter of a small portion of income and are seen to be withholding your support of her ideas (or at least support for the method that she uses to share them) at the possible cost of being seen as only a fairweather supporter of freedom of speech.

Her fee was probably guaranteed regardless of the turn-out. She's not a indie rock band.

Darren on March 26, 2010 at 3:37 pm

Wikipedia has taught me to fear:

"Sexual cannibalism is common among mantises in captivity, and under some circumstances may also be observed in the field. The female may start feeding by biting off the male's head (as with any prey), and if mating had begun, the male's movements may become even more vigorous in its delivery of sperm.

….

The act of dismounting is one of the most dangerous times for males during copulation, for it is at this time that females most frequently cannibalize their mates. This increase in mounting duration was thought to indicate that males would be more prone to wait for an opportune time to dismount from a hungry female rather than from a satiated female that would be less likely to cannibalize her mate. Some consider this to be an indication that male submissiveness does not inherently increase male reproductive success, rather that more fit males are likely to approach a female with caution and escape"

the caut and other bodies representing canadian teachers and students should not be defending coulter here, they should be launching a class action defamation suit in conjunction with the university of ottawa student body to hold coulter responsible for her baseless and factually inaccurate comments because they were both ungrounded in fact and clearly designed to injure the public reputation of the school. how's that for free speech, ann? are you going to try and tear down our defamation laws, too, while you simultaneously argue against the right of protest?

her only possible defense would be for her to claim that she's a comedian. while that would likely get her off the hook, it would set the record straight.

I am a U of O alumni student and I know that they are incredibly conservative but I totally agree with the fact that Coulter should not be even considered a speaker! She has nothing constructive to offer Canadians .. maybe Yuk Yuk's would be a better venue than a university that is supposed to further worthwhile causes to students! This is not the USA! We don't like or should not endorse making nasty, useless and discriminating opinions about cultures of the world and idealogies! She is disgusting! Calgary is just lapping up the publicity Shame on them!

U of O student on March 26, 2010 at 12:51 pm

To Former Student (No name)

Obviously they taught you what to think and not how to think at the leftist University of Ottawa. You're intolerant as taught by your left-wing professors and its poisoned your mind for life. You knee-jerk liberals and leftists seem to br afraid of other's opinions that you, like Hitler and Stalin, want to shut them down instead of challenging someone with which you disagree with better ideas and opinions. If you don't like democracy go live in North Korea or Red China and see how long you survive. It seems your univeresity education, if you graduated at all, was wasted on you. Shame on you!

Ken, Toronto

Ken Rowan on March 26, 2010 at 4:25 pm

Here here ! Well said.

Dan on March 26, 2010 at 6:46 pm

I say get rid of the fascist, unconstitutional, kangaroo courts called the Human Rights Commissions-so-called. And people like you who want to sue everybody who offends your feeble sensibilities because you don't seem to possess the intellect to challenge with better ideas or opinions. I am a catholic and offended at least once a month by what I read concerning my faith but I don't believe in running to some fascist human rights commission for revenge. I prefer to fight my own battles myself because I feel secure enough in my own abilities. That does not seem to be the case with a lot of knee-jerk liberals and leftists.

Ken, Toronto

Ken Rowan on March 26, 2010 at 4:12 pm

Wonderfully said!! As a white, male, brought up in the Christian faith I'm insulted every day by comments made by our "new immigrants" and "visible minorities" who come to our country, our home, and are forcing us through these Kangaroo Courts, as you so aptly name them, to change our culture to theirs. Their cultures, which they either ran away from, or worse, came here to deliberately destroy ours, are repressive(women's rights), preach hate for anything other than theirs(Mohammed preached destruction of all who weren't Muslim in the Koran), and demand that all respect them but show no respect for others(the Nijab controversey in Montreal). We used to have a relatively free and open society until we came up with this stupid "unity in diversity" slogan, now our society with the HRC's and Hate Laws has become something that would have made Mao, Stalin or Hitler proud! Truth is no longer a defense in Canada.

Skyroamer on March 27, 2010 at 12:17 am

I am a U of O student and I had a class at the time of the protest. As i walked by, I was PROUD of my University. I am also a White, French Canadien Christian Student. The diffrence between me and you is that I am not racist. As a women, i face sexism daily. As a French Canadian, I am faced with the hatred i see on these message boards every couple of weeks. I have never been brought down, intimidated, discriminated against or been afraid of Muslims, Jewish, Black, Red, Yellow or anything diffrerent then me. The diversity of life is such that we are SUPPOSED to be living like this, in co-harmony.

What I AM afraid of is people like you. People who feed on the Bible's words instead of Human experiences. People so closed minded you judge homosexuality as humanities' biggest problem and Muslim's as "terrorists". YOU are the kind of people who gave power to Mao, Stalin and Hitler by your hatred and xenophobia.

I am ashamed that you calll yourself a Canadian.

Clavo on March 27, 2010 at 8:58 am

No one is forcing you to change your culture to anything. Last time I checked "your" culture was basically the natives culture which you ruined. Having said that, you're culture is a culture of immigrants who formed Canada. Just as these "new immigrants" and "visible minorities" will, once they become Canadian citizens.

Way to be paranoid: deliberately destroy your culture…as if people have nothing better to do. All your statements up there show your ignorance about minorities and religions. Its an embarassment having you defend Canada. You are exactly the type of Canadian, Canadians dont want – I being one of them.

Thoughtful on March 27, 2010 at 4:12 pm

What nonsense! Somebody should sue you for stupdity or, more to the point, sue the school that failed to teach you how to think rationally. Even you have the right to free speech. Even though you don't want to accord the same right to anyone with whom you disagree. So much for democracy. I suppose you'd be happy in the Socialist Republik of Canada. I'm so sick and tired of you Maoists and Trotskyites.

Ken, Toronto

Ken Rowan on March 26, 2010 at 4:39 pm

Unfortunately, you, like most other unthinking lefties, assume that because Ann, being human, makes the odd error in facts, must be always wrong. On the contrary as Tom Clark found when he interviewed her on CTV's Power Play, Ann has her major facts in order to back up her points. In fact, she made Clark look rather stupid throughout the entire interview and I think made him realize that she didn't graduate Suma Cum Luade from law school for no reason at all. I like most smug Canadians used to look down on Ann but she has made a believer out of me–she's one bright lady!

Skyroamer on March 27, 2010 at 12:03 am

Debating Anne Coulter is like debating a 4 year old.

She won't listen.
She has no curiosity to understand what others are saying if it deviates from her viewpoint and she will leave or throw a tantrum after awhile.

Except, a 4 year old has more class.

STOP Harper on March 26, 2010 at 1:56 am

Coulter isn't a classical debater. Everyone knows that. She's a sensationalist writer and speaker, a "shock and awe" artist, if you will.

My main criticism of Coulter is that her oft-incendiary delivery puts her legitimate arguments at risk. I do not dismiss her arguments, though. Those who consider themselves debaters shouldn't either.

If you think debating Ann is like debating a 4 year old, you are either stupid, ignorant or both. She obviously is so far beyond your understanding that she wouldn't even have to work up a sweat with you. She's a Suma Cum Laude law school graduate who has worked for Supreme Court Justices; you are just loud.

Theres a reason why most Americans dislike her too. Maybe Canada should educate itself about her views and her articles. Its no use supporting an ignorant lawyer.

Thoughtful on March 27, 2010 at 4:04 pm

…and you are woefully vacant…between the ear lobes…if you think Coulter is some kind of genius! Did you make it all the way through kindergarten!? Well, I suppose when you consider that she has double the three brain cells you possess, then sure, she probably appears like a genius to you. My God man, work it out; get those 3 brain cells in shape, these neo cons are just that…new con(artist)s; these are the people who ask 'why bother with the facts when you can make them up for yourself!' Apparently drifting to the right, politically, involves a progressive blindness to reality and an overpowering aversion to the truth, nevermind the irresistable lethargy you have to overcome to seek the truth for yourself. Yeah…you go right ahead and continue to listen to the right-wing wanks out there…they'll be more than happy to give you your opinion.

RFS on June 1, 2010 at 3:56 pm

Amusingly enough, you have just proven my point, IN SPADES. Not only ignorant and stupid, abhorrently rude and crude, but with a barnyard mouth full of kindergarten insults. The problem with you lefties is like all socialists, there comes a time when you run out of other people's money to spend for the programs that you all want but cannot afford. You must have been a real Trudeau booster–he never carried any money to pay his own way, he just expected others to shell out for him. Typical of course of the type, full of opinions with no factual information to back them up!

Skyroamer on June 1, 2010 at 11:37 pm

I believe that you are the four year old. Ann can simply make your viewpoint irrelevant because she has facts to back up her opinions. Opinions without facts are simply B.S., and Ann has very little tolerance for people just talking to hear themselves.

Ha!, have you ever tried debating with a Liberal? It's impossible! There is NOTHING in the universe as self Righteous as a Left Wing Canadian!!

Robb on March 28, 2010 at 6:49 pm

"Uncowed, the antis attempted to rush the main doors of the building as Ezra was winding up his intro, spiderwebbing the glass with boot damage, and they battered the exterior windows of the club throughout Coulter's main talk."

If this actually happened, I don't condone their behaviour — but the one I would call ignorant is Anne Coulter herself.

STOP Harper on March 26, 2010 at 2:12 am

"If this actually happened…"

I don't know if the protesters were seriously trying to break in, but I was there and I heard the pounding on the wall and I saw the spiderwebbed door as I was leaving.

Steve M on March 26, 2010 at 4:29 pm

Right, just like those ignorant thugs breaking windows and threatening democrats who voted for the HC bill down south. But i think you were saying something about how they know they shouldn't cuz they have principles…so that just makes them principled thugs.

kcm on March 26, 2010 at 2:15 am

So, I think the correct response to those actions is "you're ignorant thugs – stop behaving like this"….which is what Republican Congressmen and Tea Party activists are now saying to the ones who were doing such things.

So back to the topic at hand, these anti-Coulter activists are ignorant thugs…and yes, they do seem to be acting in accordance with their principles. Tell me, are they acting in accordance with yours?

Is that a deliberate cheap shot? Now your principles are better than mine because i stand to the left of you. I just don't buy your self serving rationalizing about left and right thugs. I've known some anarchists with more principles than many cons have these days. Hard core idealogues whether they be from the right or left of the poltical spectrum have the same problem as far as commitment to moral principle goes.

kcm on March 26, 2010 at 9:40 am

No actually, sincere question. Look at this thread. and the last one. A few are saying "I disagree with what Coulter says but I wish people would let her speak", which is what I'd respond if someone did this to Michael Moore, a lot of people are instead launching invective at Coulter, or blaming her for it, or (in your case) deflecting to an unrelated tangent, etc. One guy even posted a link to an S&M picture purporting to be of Coulter bound and gagged. Classy.

"Hard core idealogues whether they be from the right or left of the poltical spectrum have the same problem as far as commitment to moral principle goes."
Actually its worse than that. None of us on the right live up to our principles. But I maintain that that is very different from holding the position that there are no objective moral principles, as underlies the thinking of the left.

What I find really strange is that even though Coulter said that her speeches and comments are mostly satire and exaggerations, some people still see her as an important political influence and she gets to sell herself as such because of these people.

So who's really ignorant? People who mistake satirical filibuster as political insight, or the ones that calls out the fraudulent filibusterer with thuggery?

Both actually. So lets not cast stone at either form of lesser being.

Andre on March 26, 2010 at 7:03 pm

"But I maintain that that is very different from holding the position that there are no objective moral principles, as underlies the thinking of the left"

You generalize too much. Odd how many cons argue that the left is too dogmatic and rigid in its thinking, this is of course a logical absurdity. For the record, since it was an honest question, yes violent protest is wrong.

kcm on March 26, 2010 at 7:51 pm

The absurdity is of course they can't be both unprincipled and dogmatic.

kcm on March 26, 2010 at 10:16 pm

"Dogma" means "tenet", not "moral principle". One can believe that morality is subjective and yet be dogmatic. The belief itself would be a dogma.

No logical absurdity there. The logical absurdity arises when people fail to see the connection between moral relativism and the "might makes right" attitude being displayed by these thugs.

I'm sorry but i continue to believe that moral relatavism is a human failing, not just a political choice. When we want badly enough to believe that a course of action, or almost anything is the right thing t do by our definition, then we can all be prone to relatavism. [ i have a keen interest in dissonance theory, which i find fits my view that it's a universal failing rather than a narrow political failing as you choose to believe] I certainly believe people with a strong moral grounding can rise above moral relatavism, i'm not at all sure it has much to do with ones poltical allignment. Unless we're talking about idealogues.

kcm on March 27, 2010 at 6:13 am

Given some of the nonsensical responses she made to both Canada- and Ameri-centric questions she was asked, it would be safe to call her ignorant, and Palin blissfully oblivious.

Neil from Calgary on March 26, 2010 at 2:28 am

given what *actually* happened in ottawa, i wouldn't be surprised to learn that the violent protesters were paid, if we can even believe that there were violent protesters. there certainly weren't any violent protesters in ottawa!

nonetheless, violent protest is not acceptable protest and neither the left nor the right take the view that it is. nobody should have to point that out to anybody else.

Nice to hear Coulter's as courageous as the so-called leader in Canada who pimps her ride (but only to his donors — otherwise, he's just your average turncoat liberal with a hate-on for everything trudeau)… And as far as Calgary being more open to diversity than ottawa, well, depending how many shades of white you're crazy about.
While Calgary's got Anders, Ottawa's got Pierre poopon. Sounds like a pretty crummy saw-off.

burlivespipe on March 26, 2010 at 2:37 am

It`s good to see you`re making an effort to reduce your ratio of insult per word.

common man on March 26, 2010 at 7:24 am

According to a Statistics Canada report on diversity in Canadian cities released this month, based on 2006 census data Ottawa's non-white population was 19% of the total population (not including Gatineau, which was 6%). Based on the same data, Calgary's non-white population was 22%.

I've lived in both cities at length and for a comparable amount of time in each. To be very clear, Calgary is larger and more diverse than Ottawa, and according to the article above had a comparable number of protesters, who happened to be more vigorous in their opposition. What Calgary did not have was milqetoast letters and wan statements about being concerned about ensuring paying attendees were not made to feel "unsafe" or "uncomfortable."

matt on March 26, 2010 at 12:17 pm

The polite crowd of 900 listened as Coulter talked about diversity, gays, and bias in the media.

The audience gave a huge cheer when Coulter proposed making Calgary the 51st of the United States.

She said Canada was the least diverse country she's seen — which brought objections from the audience, but she pointed out that everyone in the crowd looked like she did.

"The audience gave a huge cheer when Coulter proposed making Calgary the 51st of the United States. "

What did Coulter have to say about traitors? Oh yes,..

When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.

She's got something for everyone, that's for sure.

MacLean's Regular on March 26, 2010 at 4:01 pm

I'm all for Ann Coulter speaking, good on Calgary for getting it right. That said, I really hope most of the audience followed Mr. Cosh's lead and chose not to take her very seriously.

A question, though: Are politicians and pundits celebrities, or are they supposed to be leaders? If they're just celebs, then I can get why how attractive people like Coulter and Palin is so frequently mentioned. It's the same as any other female celebrity, their looks are an integral part of their sales pitch, to get people to watch TV, go to a movie, buy a book or whatever. However, if they're supposed to be leaders of any kind why does how they look even matter for a second? It's their ideas and count and I'd say for Coulter especially her ideas are pretty ugly.

Iccyh on March 26, 2010 at 4:45 am

I don't think she even believes half the junk she says, she just likes to create attention and make a buck.

Claudia Lemire on March 26, 2010 at 5:00 am

That'd be even worse, given all the hate she manages to stir up.

Iccyh on March 26, 2010 at 5:08 am

Who hates based on anything Ann Coulter ever said or wrote? Can you name three conservative friends who have ever read anything she's written? I can't.

Darden Cavalcade on March 26, 2010 at 7:13 am

I live in Canada, my friends aren't going to be the best sample group if you're looking for people who might listen to Ann Coulter. We're generally not her target audience up here, you know?

Besides, what people like Coulter do isn't so much create hatred, instead they help make it more publicly acceptable. If she can say "ride a camel", that's cover and justification for a lot of others.

Iccyh on March 26, 2010 at 9:46 am

Similar to the concern that lccyh raises…do you suppose that Coulter ever wonders if some people might not recognize the hyperbole that she employs, and take her message at face value? Do you suppose that she cares? Or how would she justify that to herself?

Did they? This 'Calgary good, Ottawa bad' meme seems to be driven by Levant himself. Colby calls it out above: "The component of Ezra's introduction for Coulter that rang a little false was the civic self-congratulation. “This is Calgary, not Ottawa,” he bellowed, inducing positively demented applause."

I call bullsh*t. It sounds like the difference between the two events were 1) the Calgary event was properly organized, including enough space for the crowd and provisions for protesters, and 2) the Calgary protesters tried to *break down the doors* (albeit without pulling a fire alarm).

I think we all need to be a little more cautious when somebody like Levant tries to spoonfeed the media a conclusion.

The old question remains. If a society is peaceful, is it because they are at peace or is it because no one has cast the first stone? Sometimes the fiery debates caused by rabble rouser's is more telling of underlining contentions.
Without free speech (sometimes belligerent) we never know what we really thought of ourselves.
A debate is two or more sides exchanging "differing" ideas; a discussion happens when we disallow one of those ideas because it doesn't conform with our own.

I disagree. A discussion is when you allow differing ideas, something we don't allow in Canada anymore. We only allow speech when it agrees with the politically correct opinion, therefore, no free speech or even more important, no free expression. With no free expression, no democracy!

I would have to disagree with the assertion that Coulter is not bright or intelligent. Her fame and wealth suggest she is quite smart about selling her product to friendly markets. At risk of demeaning Ann, it's similar to renowned lefty Al Gore. Gore is a lousy debater and policy adviser but there's no denying he's politically intelligent and can smell a financial opportunity 18,000 kilometers away.

Some very intelligent people would debate a topic to death in a small room with 100 interested debaters. Gore and Coulter make millions, top best-seller lists and spread their word farther and wider that the small room folk can even imagine. To arrive at a conclusion of "less intelligent" when assessing the likes of Gore or Coulter, one has to use a very narrow set of criteria indeed.

As for Vietnam, while Canada did not officially "send troops," Canadians did fight alongside Americans in Vietnam and Canada was up to its eyeballs in support behind the scenes. Even the CBC has information about it. _http://archives.cbc.ca/war_conflict/vietnam_war/t…

Ann Coulter is not very intelligent – her policy opinions are not well thought out …

My Healthcare Plan
by Ann Coulter …

'For example, in a free market, the government wouldn't need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding "pre-existing conditions."

'Of course, an insurance company has to be able to refuse NEW customers with "pre-existing conditions." Otherwise, everyone would just wait to get sick to buy insurance. It's the same reason you can't buy fire insurance on a house that's already on fire.'

And she's happy with the gov't bridging the divide…let me go out on a limb and say…no!

kcm on March 26, 2010 at 10:02 am

"As for Vietnam, while Canada did not officially "send troops,""

Coulter explicitly said we were officially there. When she was corrected, she refused to backdown. Instead she reportedly went on a late night talk show and clamed she had schooled an airhead Canadian reporter. Classy!

kcm on March 26, 2010 at 10:00 am

I've seen the clip. She said "Canada sent troops". Period. No "officially".

And from Mark Peters's CBC link above:
"Canada harboured American draft dodgers and helped supervise ceasefires. But at the same time, about about 30,000 Canadians volunteered to fight in southeast Asia. And there was Canada's involvement in secret missions, weapons testing and arms production."

You're going to have to go find a better example.

Steve M on March 26, 2010 at 2:00 pm

If Coulter knew what Canada's involvement in Viet Nam was she would have had a response. She didn't.
Good of you to try and help her out though.

JanBC on March 26, 2010 at 2:40 pm

I do love to help.

She was aware that Canada was involved somehow. Taking an American pundit to task for an incomplete understanding of Canadian history still seems like a cheap shot. Why don't we just ask her how many of our Premiers she can name?

Steve M on March 26, 2010 at 4:06 pm

That Canada fought in the Vietnam war was central to her point. Her point being that it was outrageous Canada didn't help invade Iraq. Especially because we had particpated in the War in Vietnam.

Canada's involvment in Vietnam was central to her point. She was complaining about official Canadian opposition to the invasion of Iraq. She was assuming Canada had officially fought in Vietnam.

It was apillar of her argument. She wasn't being quizzed. She brought it up. It was central.

What don't you get?

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 4:44 pm

exactly!

kcm on March 26, 2010 at 10:48 pm

She made the accusation. It's up to her to back it up. You're not helping, you're enabling her.

JanBC on March 27, 2010 at 1:39 am

But once she was corrected couldn't she back down or is she incapable of humility…

d.l.simms on March 29, 2010 at 9:46 am

Canada sent soldiers to observe the ceasefire between North and South Vietnam. We originally tried to send diplomats. None would go. So we sent soldiers. Who went to Vietnam to perform a role originally intended for diplomats. They didn't serve in a military capacity.

Canada was chosen after Belgium was rejected because of its colonial past. India and Poland also sent people to observe the ceasefire.

Right-wingers have been using Canadian soldiers' presence in Vietnam for years as proof we participated in the war. They even got a Canadian badge placed inside the Vietnam at War section of the War Museum in London England. It's just more neo-conservative imaginary point-scoring dribble. It makes me sad.

Funny how hectoring shrews like Ann Coulter never include Poland and India. They were there for the exact same purpose, doing the exact same thing as the so often mentioned Canadian soldiers, yet they are never mentioned.

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 4:13 pm

Nevertheless she is somewhat correct, according to wiki Canadians sent themselves to Vietnam, some 30,000 with 110 fatalities ("Canada and the Vietnam War"). Whether Coulter is aware of the distinction, she would appear to be more insightful over this subject than most Canadians.

Roy on March 26, 2010 at 2:04 pm

Those were called 'mercenaries'. There were even some American ''mercenaries' fighting for the Viet cong. They were also trying to draft immigrants first too. We had both Mexican and Canadian friends living in the States in the 1960s and they were being drafted.

During the break-up of Yugoslavia, Canadians fought for Croatia and Serbia, in several instances against actual Canadian soldiers serving in the actual Canadian military.

Many Canadians have fought in the Israeli military, with distinction. But nobody ever claims Canada committed soldiers to the invasion of Lebanon, or the recent Operation Cast Lead against Gaza. Canadians notoriously fought alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan and later with el Qaeda. Yet nobody claims Canada is engaged in Islamic jihad.

The real question is why are right-wingers obsessed with proving Canada participated in something it never did? Is this what we have to look forward to thirty years from now, when right-wingers start claiming Canada played a role in the invasion of Iraq?

Does the right-wing care anything about historical truth? Or are they just a bunch of ideologues who worship Reagan rather than Marx?

You claim anyone as less insightful than yourself? Hmm …

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 4:27 pm

"Canadians fought for Croatia and Serbia"
"Many Canadians have fought in the Israeli military"

30,000?

Steve M on March 26, 2010 at 4:33 pm

Point?

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 4:40 pm

You wondered why people talk about Canadians' involvement in Vietnam, but not their involvement in Croatia/Serbia or Lebanon. I was merely suggesting that the scope of the involvement might be relevant to the answer. Numbers matter. 10,000 people in a protest, natural disaster, warzone, or rock concert is a bigger deal than 100 people.

Steve M on March 26, 2010 at 5:39 pm

The 30, 000 were volunteers, correct? Coulter was clearly implying we were officially there. It could have been a simple misunderstanding. But then for Coulter misunderstandings are always someone elses mistake.

kcm on March 26, 2010 at 10:54 pm

I remember that CBC episode where Ann thought Canada had sent troops to Vietnam well. The 'gotcha' insinuation made about Ann's mistake was that she was lying to support her argument that Canada had previously been more supportive. That 10 to 30 thousand individuals crossed the border to join is probably better for her argument than if the support had been official. But it's Ann, so she was "lying". I've learned to literally assume the opposite of whatever the excercised left says about right wingers is the truth. The real ignorance of American conservatives is in how much Canada has been involved in Afghanistan. Canadian casualties including both wars are actually close to the UK's by population – no other countries are anywhere near – and I'm not sure there's a single American conservative with a clue about that.

I used to read Ann a lot for the entertainment, but I remember often catching myself with suprise at how sharp the point behind her rhetoric really was. You get out of her what you put it… I'll leave it at that :p

"She know little about anything outside the USA". Yes, like most americans, borh left and right. Even CNN called Ezera Levant a student at the University of Ottawa, yesterday when showing him making his statement. Even the left-wing CNN has stupid researchers.

Ken, Toronto

ken Rowan on March 26, 2010 at 3:50 pm

I find this quite interesting. Colby started an earlier blog with "Ezra Levant, who was present at the venue for tonight's aborted Ann Coulter talk at the University of Ottawa, spotted my quickie weblog entry about the cancelled event and had me chat briefly with the leggy agitator." In that blog, there are a lot of unchecked allegations made by Ann Coutler that have since been proven to have been false by KO'M and others. Colby happily does not address this here. And there appears to be a reason. He writes with puppy dog admiration:

But they cheered, I would almost swear, with even greater volume for Ezra Levant, co-organizer of Coulter's tour. I'm a friend of Ezra's, but I had never seen him speak on home turf before. The love was palpable and astonishing. I suppose he is part of the city's image, the legend it tells of itself, at this point.

I have some friends, long time Calgarians (born elsewhere) who are involved in various senior levels in the O&G industry- the mainstay of Calgary. I was teasing one of them a few years back about some embarassing thing Levant was doing at the time. Here's what they wrote back:

Please make it perfectly clear to any one you ever talk to that 80% of Albertans ignore Ezra Levant because he does not know what he is talking about, and of the 20% that actually leave the tv on when he talks or read his diarrheic babble, 15% disagree with everything he says or stands for, and the other 5% figure he has, “a good point or two, but the rest is manure”.

Dot on March 26, 2010 at 7:06 am

Yes, the oilpatch certainly is hostile to Ezra's views, a fact they proved by giving him millions of dollars to publish a magazine.

A few million is peanuts in Calgary. You could probably make as much in a massage parlour.

Dot on March 26, 2010 at 7:51 am

Sorry Dot, but Colby's right. This is a city that re-elects Rob Anders with massive majorities, seemingly in perpetuity. They would do the same – in spades – for Ezra Levant.

Richard on March 26, 2010 at 8:14 am

As they would for a loyal hamster in that riding. I've seen Rob Anders riding in some Calgary Stampede parade in an open top vehicle some time ago – you know – just before the cowboys "escort" the various first nations in their traditional clothing – waving unanswered to the crowd. It certainly didn't strike me that "he is part of the city's image, the legend it tells of itself, at this point."

Rick Bell, The "Dinger" of Calgary Sun (I think that's his name and moniker) was interviewed on CBC NN – Mark Kelly's show before the gala last night. I thought he put things into perspective. Out of 1 million people, maybe 400-500 would have been initially interested in seeing Coulter speak. After all of the hype – it doubled to maybe 900-1,000, largely because people wanted to witness some confrontation. I'll see if I can find a link…

Dot on March 26, 2010 at 8:30 am

Or maybe, just maybe, the number doubled because CBC made the decision to cover the Coulter story non stop for three days. It's a bit rich when people appear on National TV in order to complain about hype.

Given the screen time she's been getting, I just assumed that she was either dating Tiger Woods or had confeessed to killing OJ's wife.

Richard on March 26, 2010 at 9:36 am

May I recommend the Single Transferable Vote system as a solution to this problem.

..and where is that magazine today? Some oil patch folks may have helped fund him, but there weren't enough fans or admirers of his views to keep the print edition floating by actually purchasing a subscription to it.

A simple interview with the person at the centre of a breaking news story would ordinarily be considered "journalism", or "news", wouldn't it? Or are you using really unusual definitions for these terms?

Again, if an "interviewer" asking a public figure questions and recording the answers carefully is not a journalist, you are using a definition of "journalism" that absolutely nobody but you recognizes. If you're not concerned with what's actually important–"Is the information being presented to me true, relevant, and interesting, and to what degree?"–then maybe you should try coming up with a different word? "I expect good solid blortz in my Macleans.ca and this isn't blortz!"

Colby, you weren't interviewing her. You were giving her a forum to spin her line. I don't see a single question put by you in that piece.

Barrett Pashak on March 26, 2010 at 5:18 pm

If you put the words "Ann Coulter was asked to explain and describe the events of the evening from her point of view" in front of it, would that help you understand the incredibly baffling format in which it was presented? And, yes, quoting someone is "giving them a forum". If "interviewing" seems like too dignified a word (I don't even disagree), feel free to call it "the creation of an accurate record of somebody's words at a pivotal moment" and then explain in English what the hell the problem with such an activity might be.

"If "interviewing" seems like too dignified a word (I don't even disagree), feel free to call it "the creation of an accurate record of somebody's words at a pivotal moment" and then explain in English what the hell the problem with such an activity might be."

The problem is that you were giving her a microphone. There seem to be a lot of people who not only don't want to hear what Coulter has to say (fair enough), but also don't want anyone else to hear what she has to say. You were interfering with the latter objective.

You just seem to be looking for a reason to be annoyed (or a pretext for an insult) based on the fact that there's a division of labour in journalism, that sometimes one person just creates a record and others do critical follow-up, and that sometimes Journalist A may have something relevant to report on a file, through pure happenstance, without pursuing it to the ends of the earth. There's a journalism ecosystem that, as a whole, serves us well. Neither Maclean's magazine nor Macleans.ca offers you a complete account of the world, or is intended to.

Uh, that's sort of what I said the first time. People for some reason expect that Maclean's cares about truth, when what it really cares about is getting "reporting" out fast enough to generate advertising views.

Otherwise, one might think that you may have corrected or presented an addendum to Ezra's "facts" once they become fully known by someone who was doing some actual digging and reporting. Instead, you leave them hanging out there as if they are the truth unvarnished.

I imagine your admission of bias in reporting probably doesn't help matters any for those who for some reason assume you're interesting in being a critical journalist as opposed to simply a reporter.

I haven't said that Maclean's "doesn't care about truth" or that my reporting/interviewing/stenography in the second Coulter piece was "biased". It's a complete account of a short, mostly one-sided conversation that provided the material for judgment on the part of the reader and journalists. If you have some reason to think the account is inaccurate or untrue, you should very much be concerned.

In as much as I don't think Ezra was picking you at random to get his/her message out, the reporting was timely and added a great deal to the context of the story. And to be fair, it would have been impossible at that time to even attempt to fact check.

I note that David Akin made this blog comment the following day – to illustrate the difficulty for even Ottawa based journalists/reporters/columnists to get further details until the University admin wad reconvened the following morning:

The craziness that was Ann Coulter's non-speech at the University of Ottawa had pretty much died down by about 9 p.m. or so on Tuesday night. Within minutes, Coulter was calling the U of O a "bush league" institution. No doubt then, you'll be amazed, at the lightning speed at which the University of Ottawa finally got around to officially reacting to the issue – more than 15 hours after the whole cacophony. Here it is:http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2010…

Dot on March 27, 2010 at 10:08 am

I was banking on the continuation of the cougar motif, where you would confide that you were mentally seduced by her "mesmerizing blonde mane". She might be more your type than you are willing to concede…. ;)

But seriously – Everyone keeps hammering on about the leftist bias in the media. Is a righty bias any better?
I don't begrudge you for your point of view (though I might not support it) – I simply challenge you to play a better game. Less rooting for the home team – more discussion of the plays!

Not at all actually. I've just participated in plenty of forums where there is non stop whining about the need to balance things in the media. In other words – righties invoke the same sins as those wretched lefties, if given the opportunity.

I was really referring to Ezra being a mouthpiece for a certain pov anywhere in this country. He gets to say things in places the average oilman is unlikely to have a voice. Politically safe environs being for them Calgary and AB generally. In away it's a compliment to him, i certainly wouldn't impugn his courage.

"Please make it perfectly clear to any one you ever talk to that 80% of Albertans ignore Ezra Levant because he does not know what he is talking about, …'

My read on Albertan's too. On the whole they're a very sensible bunch. I imagine they have similar views of Lorne Gunter too. …although in fairness i don't believe he attempts to be the showman Ezra does.

kcm on March 26, 2010 at 10:14 am

Gunter may be making the attempt, but in either case the results are less spectacular.

You know, to me people like Coultier or Ezra don't do a good service for Conservatives or Republicans, they just talk to much say bunch of very hateful stuff and make no sense, I love people who can get into a great debate and totally disagree with the opposition without having to insult and promote division and hatred.

Here in Calgary you only know Ezra if you are a political junkie, I meet weekly with my political buddies at the U of C, and believe me even though we know him (I actually follow him on twitter, read his blog and agree sometimes with him) not once has he come up in our debates, he is not a heavy weight.

Claudia Lemire on March 27, 2010 at 3:43 pm

Yes, she has the right to speak. I heard however that it was her bodyguards, not strictly the event organizers, who decided it was best to cancel the Ottawa speech.

If what she had to say was so critically important, valuable, insightful and powerful, why does she not have the courage to deal with the challenges and decide to speak despite the crowds opposing her? Is it a right only to be expressed when it's safe to do so? Calgary was magnificently defended.

She seems so expert at putting down opponents when they're only one muslim girl.

And it's slippery to draw the parallel that "Stalinist['s] … ethnic minorities, and gays and lesbians" merely exercised free speech, as though speaking at "a free-standing, isolated venue on a hillside, virtually a fortress; crowd-control gates and wooden barricades on the exterior; and a whole squadron of bicycle and foot police" where the wealthy hear you speaks is the same as protest and street action.

If Levant made the same speech in Calgary that he did in London, then I am in full agreement. Completely sincere, heartfelt and, quite frankly, amazing!

razmax on March 26, 2010 at 8:09 am

I don't like Ezra Levant but he is undoubtedly an intelligent man and one heck of a speaker. I imagine he is also less cowardly and would have been willing to engage the 'ani' crowd if it was his speech. He diminishes himself by 'introducing' someone like Coulter. Coulter is what many Ezra haters would like to paint Ezra as, and he has helped them out. She is not smart or talented, and despite what Colby says I've never heard her say anything remotely funny. I don't understand why any intelligent conservative, no matter how far-right would want to be in the same room with her.

John D on March 26, 2010 at 8:13 am

I do agree with you, he blew it, he shouldn`t put himself in this position with this person, it doesn`t do him any good!

Claudia Lemire on March 26, 2010 at 6:08 pm

I wonder if Ms. Coulter even knew where Calgary was before this speaking tour?

dude, he's being "irreverent" and "edgy". Unafraid to call it like he sees it. Bravely standing up to the politically correct machinery. Striking a blow for freedom, as it were.

Mike T. on March 26, 2010 at 9:50 am

"If she can say "ride a camel", that's cover and justification for a lot of others"

Exactly…and it's on these moral grounds she should be opposed, not free speech. i wish more of her opponents would realise that…but then we're back to the stirring up hatred. But according to Coulter we shouls all relax and get a sense of humour…some humour, some lady.

kcm on March 26, 2010 at 9:53 am

I think you mean ignorant and icky.

Opinionator on March 26, 2010 at 9:53 am

As a U of C student, I know of many, many people who are extremely frustrated by the feeling of intellectual imprisonment imposed on us by Canadian political correctness culture. Just recently we had a giant muslim rally, complete with a poster and tee shirt campaign by (mostly african) muslims called "Jesus was a muslim." Not one person I know wasn't at least in some part privately upset about this, but because this is the land of overt political correctness, we were all terrified that if we were to openly speak our minds in defence of our own beliefs, we would be publicly shunned, and never be able to find a job. I do believe that they should change the national anthem; "home and native land" no longer means anything.

If Canadians do no stand up for their culture and their beliefs, who will? Certainly not muslims.

AnonUofc on March 26, 2010 at 10:03 am

Oh you poor, poor university student. I recall my days of being a white male university student and I woke up every day feeling so imprisoned. And then you have to look out for muslims (especially the scary African ones!) around every corner threatening you with posters and tshirts. I don't know how I ever survived.

John D on March 26, 2010 at 10:17 am

This made me smile. :)

Also, 'Home and Native Land' means nothing anyway. We're a relatively recent introduction to this country, and the aboriginal societies who were here before us were also relatively recent in terms of human history. So, AnonUofc, you've not a leg to stand on, there, 'bye. What we know as 'Canadian' culture is a mishmash of a colourful variety of world cultures. Canada doesn't really have much culture of its own, and no society that has such free and open trade and movement globally can expect their culture to remain static.

Opinionator on March 26, 2010 at 10:34 am

I agree with most of what you are saying but I disagree that Canada doesnt have much culture of it own and I'm tired of hearing people say that. Travel outside of Canada for awhile, come back again, and you will see it more clearly.

gloriousandfree on March 26, 2010 at 4:12 pm

Oh, you with the sarcasm! They were all TERRIFIED, and now you've probably gone and made it worse. What's worse than terrified? I don't know, but it's really bad. It probably leaves scars.

Them's fight'n words. He was a gainfully employed carpenter, who liked to wear sandals.

kcm on March 26, 2010 at 11:35 am

Jesus believed in progressive taxation and a high marginal rate. He also supported cap and trade and vouchers for primary education. It is all there in Deuteronomy – albeit in a Straussian reading which omits the original Aramaic's adverbs.

I suspect the problem might not be that you disagree, but how you'd disagree.

Maybe try out some talking points on us and see how it sells.

Brian on March 26, 2010 at 4:30 pm

Anon, I also attend the U of C. If you found their campaign offensive you should have attended and protested with the volunteers present their in the calm and peaceful manner that they were holding their event. But obviously you did not. that was your decision. I don't think the question here is of political corecctness. Instead its a question of whether or not you had the correct religious knowledge to promote back up your view.

The last statement you made above has an underlying assumption though. That Muslims cannot be Canadians. Well in that case I am a living and breathing contradition to your argument.

guess on March 27, 2010 at 2:40 pm

You need to read the excellent book on this very issue, by Diana West: "Death of the Grown-up"

pwh on March 28, 2010 at 12:46 am

First, Muslims saying that "Jesus was a Muslim" is not intended as an insult. To take it as such reveals your prejudice. Second, I suspect the point they were making is that Christianity, Judaism and Islam all recognize the early Old Testament prophets such as Abraham and share much of a common regligious history. Islams recognizes Jesus Christ as a Prophet. The message is both the commonality and universality of the common ties.
Third, you are a university student. Supposedly you've gone to university to learn to think and use your mind–to open it up to new ideas. So far, you're not doing so well. What you should have done is open up a dialogue with some of the people at the rally to understand what they were saying. That's what you do at a university. Otherwise, you might better have considered a career in retail.

John Johnston on March 30, 2010 at 1:55 am

My bad. And I'm sure Calgary would be a wonderful place if they exiled all the conservatives. Sure the population would be under 1000, but lovely none the less.

I actually hope I am right and she is all for the mighty dollar, because otherwise it is actually scary to have someone so hateful and feeling good about it, thinking that she is doing a good deed by making people hate each other. I can't get that at all, what makes you hate people because of their beliefs or skin color.

I really dislike that about some americans they have this wonderful constitution and amendments to make sure that you are free, Iam sure the founding fathers didn't have this in mind when they wrote this, some of people (and thankfully ir a small minority) hide behind them to promote this hatred, I mean the things that come out of her mouth are really terrible, and a good decent human being would never consider that even as a thought.

Claudia Lemire on March 26, 2010 at 5:52 pm

Where on earth do you get the idea that Coulter hates people for their skin colour? That's a pretty serious accusation to be throwing around. You'd better have some basis for it.

Don't get distracted by the Muslims … the real threat is the Irish. Give them an inch and those dirty Fenians will destroy this country and everything it stands for.

Neil MacDonald taking down Ann Coulter was genius. She argued our non-participation in the invasion of Iraq was uniquely perfidious because we had sent troops to fight in Vietnam. When Neil MacDonald insisted Canada did not in fact send troops to Vietnam she told him he was wrong and refused to be convinced otherwise.

This is a person who goes on television and doesn't bother to check her argument's supporting facts beforehand. Why anybody would pay to hear her speak is beyond me.

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 10:46 am

Wasn't that interview with Brian Stewart?

Sigh on March 26, 2010 at 12:08 pm

I think I hate you.

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 12:31 pm

aha i knew i was right…it was Stewart. I hate you for not realizing that your being wrong has caused me to hate myself for being unnecessarily wrong, when i was right all along.

kcm on March 26, 2010 at 11:46 pm

I think it would be more entertaining if it was Neil's brother – Norm MacDonald interviewing.

Nah, Norm regularly appears on O'Reilly, so it would probably end up the exact opposite of what you're hoping for.

Bryan on March 26, 2010 at 4:17 pm

Tossed this one off while sitting on the toilet this morning, eh Cosh?

Nice work if you can get it.

MacLean's Regular on March 26, 2010 at 10:54 am

None of us can be sure why Coulter`s speech in Ottawa was cancelled. Maybe her people did not get much assurance from the U of O and the police that she would be safe after receiving threats from protesters earlier in the day.

And it is understandable how a 100 pound woman would feel physically threatened by a group that do not hesitate to take their right to disrupt to the limit of the law and a bit further.

common man on March 26, 2010 at 11:27 am

"The police, Coulter says, “had been warning my bodyguard all day that they were putting up [messages] on Facebook: ‘Bring rocks, bring sticks, you gotta hurt Ann Coulter tonight, don't let her speak.' And the cops eventually said, we've got a bad feeling, this isn't gonna happen. And they shut it down.”

How do you explain this? I haven't read Kady's piece but i understand she debunked all of it. Face it, the woman's a pathological liar, Coulter that is.

kcm on March 26, 2010 at 11:46 am

Other then the fact Kady is also a 100 pound woman, I don`t see what her credentials would be to judge why Coulter`s people decided that the security and venue were insufficient to protect her physical well-being from the protest element.

common man on March 26, 2010 at 12:27 pm

"I don`t see what her credentials would be to judge"

Aside from all that pesky research, and talking to various sides to get the full picture of what actually transpired that night?

Bryan on March 26, 2010 at 4:20 pm

Just more evidence of the well-known truism: A bully is a coward.

While I storngly support Ms. Coulter's right to speak, there's never been any question in my mind that she is an intellectual fraud, a bully when she feels safe, and a cringing coward at all times.

I also agree with the first sentence of your second paragraph. The rest of what you write is simply free advertising for Ms. Coulter.

common man on March 26, 2010 at 12:29 pm

As a point of fact, a fairly compressive study completed a few years ago, I think at McGill, found that a sizeable minority of bullies aren't cowards at all; but, in fact, are simply mean.

Furthermore, when you isolate bullies to include only the ones who are physically large, the study found a majority of bullies to be mean, rather than cowardly. The theory goes that, in evolutionary terms, (accumulation of scarce resources; opportunities to procreate; use sarcasm; make inappropriate remarks; wear inappropriate clothing; have piercings, tattoos) a mean and bullying personality adds value to a physically-large frame. Being large and a bully helps you get what you want.

Adjust your behaviour accordingly.

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 12:47 pm

What, you think cowardice and "meanness" are mutually exclusive? I don't. In fact, cowardice is usuallly found in combination with all manner of other personality flaws. Bullies are "mean" to those they perceive as being weaker than themselves but never to those that they perceive as being stronger. That's what makes them bullies, after all.

I've been dealing with bullies all my life and – without a single exception – all will slink away when confronted directly. It's the nature of the beast.

I'm not disputing your experiences, but the data doesn't lie. Physically large bullies usually have as their secondary characteristic a mean, not cowardly disposition. It's an evolutionary adaption enabling them to more easily achieve their goals. Why would the physically large evolve into cowardly bullies? To what purpose? Over time they would be out-bred by the non-cowardly mean.

Maybe you were only dealing with smallish bullies? Or average size ones? Or maybe you were dealing with statistical outliers? Freakishly large cowardly bullies? Did you count their toes?

Are you physically large? You certainly seem mean. I think it is you who is the bully.

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 3:39 pm

lol

Coulter couldn't have said it any better.

kcm on March 27, 2010 at 12:01 am

If you want me to think better of Alberta – which is quite possible – then get rid of Ezra Levant. He's a disgrace to a good cause, and a disgrace to several bad ones as well. If Levant is truly part of the 'cultural fabric' of Calgary, then all I can say is, no wonder the rest of the country looks down on you with a sneer.

Brian on March 26, 2010 at 12:40 pm

So you want to not only bad speech you don't like, but people you don't like? Now the left wants to resort to jailing those with political views they disagree with? Shameful.

Er, no, I'm an absolutist on free speech, and I even make a point of frequently reading and listening to views I know I will disagree with simply because I should – an exercise which in the minds of the Coulters of the world would make me ideologically impure, or a traitor, or a compromiser.

But I actually believe that free speech is more than a punchline for those who want to justify their own excesses, which is why I made a point of saying Ezra is a disgrace to a GOOD cause. His cause is good; it's just that I don't believe for a second that he cares about it except for its value at keeping his name and his ten year old photo in the papers.

But suppose Calgary stands up – voluntarily – as a City and citizens used their free speech rights to disown and disrespect Ezra as much as he deserves, I'm sure Ezra will – voluntarily – sulk elsewhere, and he'll be equally free to say whatever he wishes from that dark – and hopefully distant – corner of the EzraVerse.

Brian on March 26, 2010 at 4:26 pm

Ok first Brian is not the Left he is one over zealous person commenting on a blog. Please stop implying you know the opinions of every left winged person.

d.l.simms on March 29, 2010 at 9:51 am

I was not implying to know the opinion of every left winged person. I was replying to a specific comment, which I disagreed with.

Then Brian would like to to through out so and so not "So you want to not only bad speech you don't like, but people you don't like? Now the LEFT wants to resort to jailing those with political views they disagree with? Shameful."

d.l.simms on March 29, 2010 at 10:10 am

Calgary reminds me of Markham. But with mountains.

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 1:12 pm

The Chinese food is better in Markham.

Dot on March 26, 2010 at 3:13 pm

Smartest thing ever said in the Maclean's forum ever, Dot.

Brian on March 26, 2010 at 4:27 pm

Hey, ginger beef was invented in Calgary.

Holly Stick on March 26, 2010 at 4:28 pm

Really, I didn`t know that! telll me the story….

Claudia Lemire on March 26, 2010 at 6:13 pm

I'm from Eastern Canada. I was there last night and it was the 1st time I've heard Ezra Speak. I was inspired and quite moved by his speach. Everything he said was the truth. He made Canada proud. Kim

Kimberly on March 26, 2010 at 8:58 pm

Good for him, hope he keeps it up, And I really do mean it !

Claudia Lemire on March 27, 2010 at 3:47 pm

Why are these hikab wearing Muslim women taking out their anger and frustration on Ann Coulter. They should be focusing their anger on the Muslim men who force them to wear the hijab. They should hold a demonstration against oppressive Muslim men and burn their hijab and niqab, just as women burnt their bras in the 1970's.

Brian on March 26, 2010 at 12:43 pm

To protest their oppression: I suggest Muslim women strip down to their skivvies and gyrate their hips in a suggestive manner.

That will show the patriarchy.

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 1:07 pm

These stupid face covering women also think its ok to marry little girls, have multiple wives, perform clitorectomies, and not allow women to leave the house without the man's permission. They are sick.

Brainwashed not sick, send your first child to an fundementalist family in Saudi-Arabia and see what happens

d.l.simms on March 29, 2010 at 10:05 am

Why are these hijab wearing Muslim women taking out their anger and frustration on Ann Coulter. They should be focusing their anger on the Muslim men who force them to wear the hijab. They should hold a demonstration against oppressive Muslim men and burn their hijab and niqab, just as women burnt their bras in the 1970's.

Brian on March 26, 2010 at 12:46 pm

It's always fun when a man tells women how to dress.

Holly Stick on March 26, 2010 at 1:55 pm

Why cannot everyone just dress sexy?

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 2:09 pm

Just curious, how does Colby Cosh know what a KKK uniform is supposed to look like. I had no idea.

Baringer on March 26, 2010 at 12:51 pm

I found that a bit odd

John D on March 26, 2010 at 7:23 pm

"(Incidentally, a pro-tip for the two guys who tried to dress as Klansmen: real KKK outfits have separate hoods. If you go for the one-piece look, you are not a scary symbol of race hatred: you are a scary symbol of the laziness of six-year-olds at Halloween.)"

Hey, get this, that was the point.

Learn some satire, retard.

KKK member #2 on March 26, 2010 at 12:52 pm

Yes, authentic costumes only please. It's so offensive to ridicule the uniform of the KKK.
*sarcasm on*

Cause the KKK was quite popular in the west during the 20's and 30's amonngst a certain segment of the population, along with a breed of socialism. The backlash is one of the reasons the west is so conservative today.

jay on March 26, 2010 at 12:59 pm

These women are forced to wear the hijab and if they do not obey there Muslim Masters they are beaten. Remember the Quaran states that women are animals and can be treated as such.

Brian on March 26, 2010 at 1:09 pm

The KKK was also popular in Ontario. Very popular. Alongside the Orange Lodge.

The backlash is one of the reasons which explains why Ontario is so liberal today.

Hhhmmmm …

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 1:10 pm

The KKK did better in Saskatchewan than Alberta. Back then, anyway…

Holly Stick on March 26, 2010 at 1:56 pm

Nope. The clan didn't last long at all in Ontario. The LOL didn't take kindly to American competition.

jay on March 26, 2010 at 3:14 pm

The KKK was wicked successful in Ontario. Membership overlapped with the Orange lodge.

Anyway. My point was to mock the assertion that the KKK's popularity created a backlash which contributed to Alberta turning Conservative. Obviously my point was lost.

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 4:38 pm

The KKK was wicked successful in Ontario. Membership overlapped with the Orange lodge.

Anyway. My point was to mock the assertion that the KKK's popularity created a backlash which contributed to Alberta turning Conservative. Obviously my point was lost.

PS: Are Nuns oppressed too? get over it, if women can go pretty much half-naked, they can choose to cover up too. not a big deal. we should not demand that they uncover.

Sarah on March 26, 2010 at 1:12 pm

Nuns are opressed.

Though not as badly as alter boys apparently.

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 1:40 pm

Muslim women choose to wear it. Mary the Mother of Jesus covered her head too. Go look at a Church mural.
And the Quran doesnt say that, Ive read it. Brian, don't be so angry and make up stuff. Cheer up, its just a woman who wants to cover up. Nuns do it too. DOnt feel so threatened.

Sarah on March 26, 2010 at 1:15 pm

I'm wearing a burka right now. So nobody can see my tears.

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 5:14 pm

As a lifetime Liberal with only a grade 12 education, I find it unbelievable that a University such as Ottawa U would do something as stupid as to get Coulter canceled. A guaranteed method of giving her a great talking point and make Ottawa U look like a bunch of 1925 socialist union boys. Free speech, NIMBY. Do you suppose she paid somebody off to cancel her show?

If you let her talk, listen to her: It's a comedy show. You can guarantee that left alone she can do more damage to her own cause in 20 minutes than all the censorship in Ottawa.

LyleHenderson on March 26, 2010 at 1:18 pm

The Bible says to smoke weed. My cousin told me.

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 1:23 pm

Sorry, im sure youre a nice guy and dont want to see that more than once every hour. However, most of the men who design women's fashion want to see that and more.
I once read a study on impotence that said all these uncovered women were making men lose sensitivity and harder to find their wives attractive.

Sarah on March 26, 2010 at 1:25 pm

It's a truism wrapped inside a tautology, but at the societal level, if more and more women are walking around in a state of uncovery, that will, without a doubt, lead to more and more women being uncovered. There is no getting around that fact. It is a known known.

I doubt the average four year old is strong-enough to carry a firearm.

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 1:42 pm

A Walther PPK/S or a .22 Magnum Mini are small enough to fit in a pants pocket. I'm sure that a child is strong enough to carry one of those……

Lori on March 26, 2010 at 1:53 pm

Don't change the terms of debate mid-stream. You specifically referenced a four year old. I will accept that the average four year old might have the physically capacity to hold one of the lighter handguns, but they will be unable to aim, not with accuracy. That I will not accept!!

The most they could do is shoot their toes off. Maybe wound themselves in the leg. As long as they miss the major arteries, there is little chance of lasting damage. Especially from a lower-calibre handgun.

On this basis I will grant that a gun-toting toddler does in fact pose a threat to him or herself, but hardly to society at large. Intelligent firearms policy should reflect that distinction.

I was at the event too and I mostly agree with Colby's observations, particularly about the crowd's "pop" for Ezra (to use a pro wrestling term), and the fact that a lot of Ann's lines were recycled material from her books and previous appearances (still funny though).

However, I disagree on two points:
1. Ezra civic self-congratulation was nothing more than what any good politician, rock star, or wrestler does to get the crowd on his side: "It's great to be back here in <insert name of city>!"
2. I didn't think Ann look nervous at all, even when the protesters were at their loudest. When she'd glance towards the direction of the commotion, she looked more annoyed or amused than worried. She was especially cheerful and relaxed during the autograph signing at the end, which is when you would expect her to be the most vulnerable.

Steve M on March 26, 2010 at 1:43 pm

Autograph signing? Seriously?

John D on March 26, 2010 at 3:26 pm

You bet. I rarely pass up the chance to get a book or photo signed. I was just sorry I didn't bring my copy of Ezra's Shakedown, as he was also signing copies.

In fact, Ann Coulter was one of the nicest authors or celebrities that I've ever waited in line for.

Steve M on March 26, 2010 at 4:12 pm

I once waited in line for Billy Crysta. He is much shorter in real life.

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 4:47 pm

"Coulter, if you're wondering, and you are, is more attractive in person than on camera. She is thus something of a contrast, in this regard, to Sarah Palin. (Meow!) Dame's not my type, but you find out the second you write about Ann Coulter that she has many open admirers, and a LOT more haters who are unadmitted admirers―unadmitted perhaps even to themselves."
________________
Wow, I'm so grateful that there are people out there like you who will boil down a woman's worth to her appearance. Thanks for that. Think about inserting men's names. Instantly offensive.
________________
"O'Reilly, if you're wondering, and you are, is more attractive in person than on camera. He is thus something of a contrast, in this regard, to Dick Cheney. (Meow!) Guy's not my type, but you find out the second you write about Bill O'Reilly that he has many open admirers, and a LOT more haters who are unadmitted admirers―unadmitted perhaps even to themselves."

Opinionator on March 26, 2010 at 1:45 pm

I`m sure Mr. Cosh looks at Coulter and Palin with the same degree of lust as you look at O' Reilly and Cheney……..nothing to be ashamed off, it`s a natural human reaction.

Ann Coulter needs the protesters to make her exciting and she needs to make extreme, crude remarks to get on the news.
If the protesters just ignored her she would have been sad and terrified then.
She's another hack 'pundit' who isnt helping anyone or anything but making the world worse with every word that comes out of her mouth.

Sarah on March 26, 2010 at 2:12 pm

Some people are too sexy for their shirts.

Holly Stick on March 26, 2010 at 2:16 pm

Ha!! HA!!

I'm too sexy for this comment thread!

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 3:29 pm

Why? Why? Why do we waste valuable brain cells to address the likes of Anne Coulter? Isn't there anything more important to deal with in this country? Coulter craves the spotlight we are giving her…and we are see a dumber for doing so! As she said to Evan Solomon during her t.v. when asked what she thought of Canada she said: "It's a nice little country…" May be the country is big but I think she was reflecting on the level of intelligence she encountered during her visit.

J.P. on March 26, 2010 at 2:17 pm

I have it on good authority Ann Coulter was hitting on Evan Solomon pretty badly during that interview. He turned her down flat because of journalism ethics and stuff.

But apparently, according to my friend, he still goes around bragging to anyone that will listen that he totally could have had Ann Coulter if he wanted to. He still has the pass key she slipped him and wears it as a necklace.

When this latest brouhaha broke out my friend was like, “oh crap, Evan's going to be totally insufferable, with all his ‘I could have banged Ann Coulter crap' and his ‘I would have done her this way and that way and made a sex tape and got super-famous' stuff” My friend said he's normally a pretty cool guy to hang out with but the mere mention of Ann Coulter makes him into this hormonal douche.

I agree. Everyone should ignore and maybe she'll go away. She is a waste of time and has nothing to contribute to society.

Sarah on March 26, 2010 at 2:22 pm

Back to gossiping about Tom Cruise.

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 3:26 pm

I'm a bit puzzled by two references today – "Jesus was a Muslim" – apparently on tee-shirts or something. Both commenters seemed upset, and I'm wondering why? My immediate assumption was that the motto was of the order of, "Jesus was white," "Jesus was black," "Jesus was a woman." Is the point that Jesus is seen as universal? I'm just curious.

Richard Westgate on March 26, 2010 at 2:30 pm

I took it to be baiting of anonymous U of C students (successfully it appears), similar to this effort:

Baiting lefties

That kind of left-wing baiting is more or less what he was doing when I first met him in 1993. Then, he was a law student at the University of Alberta and he had just pranked everyone by tacking up notices claiming the school was discriminating against Jews.

When outraged students showed up at a protest he organized, they were treated to an attack on the university's quota system, which reserved spots at the law school specifically for native students. Levant, a Jew, would not qualify for one of these reserved seats.

Predictably, native students claimed this was hate speech and, just as predictably, the dean of student affairs wrote Levant threatening to expel him.

When I interviewed him for the CBC, he was happily relishing the uproar.

Why the gap? On CNN and other media outlets, we heard a 17 year old Muslim student make reference to the flying carpet remark, a remark Coulter made shortly after 911. Coulter tried in vain for a good 8 minutes to respond in a civil fashion. But the crowd was unruly, interrupting, and confrontational. Final Ann shouted-then take a camel.

Many university of Western students applauded. Not because they liked the remark, but because Ann stood up to the mob.

Dieter on March 26, 2010 at 2:57 pm

They applauded because they could see her boobies silhouetted through her blouse. This is Western we're talking about.

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 3:25 pm

Applauded AND laughed.

Steve M on March 26, 2010 at 4:14 pm

The principal function of modern Western universities today seems to be to indoctrinate students in fear. Fear of things they can't hear, can't say, can't think, dare not encounter lest they think for themselves and do for themselves.

Darden Cavalcade on March 26, 2010 at 3:12 pm

Aaaah a cavalcade!

John D on March 26, 2010 at 3:27 pm

Gee there's lots of opinions about Ms. Coulter. I think she is a screwball. Leave her alone and she'll go away. It's the media that is making more of a deal of it than it is

Why are people so threatened by women who choose to cover up? Its a piece of cloth turned into a hat…your grandma or grreat grandma wore it too.
Over 90% of the fashion designers are men and they dictate what women should wear to be fashionable (and this changes about every 3 months). A woman who dresses modestly is simply saying don't judge me by how i look, look at me as a person with intelligence.
Colby just proved this by talking about how Coulter looked and Coulter wore as tight and short an outfit as she possibly could that showed off every one of her bones. She should eat something and not try to follow what men want her to wear. Poor thing is oppressed by what men want to see.

Sarah on March 26, 2010 at 5:06 pm

You imply men like to see boobies.

I find that sexist. Not all men like to see boobies. And not all the time.

For example, in my case, there are often times throughout the day when I would actually perfer not to have to view boobie. I mean, if I have to, I have to. But once an hour is generally pretty much all I need. More than that and it is overdoing it. I don't want the novelty to wear off. Or maybe I'm driving. Or giving a presentation. Talking on the phone to my grandmother while eating pasta.

You are sexist.

wsam on March 26, 2010 at 1:22 pm

john campbell.

Please,when the circus is leaving town,hop on board.

Garbage!

john campbell on March 26, 2010 at 5:25 pm

It would have been more appropriate for Levant to say, "This is Calgary, not Canada."

maudie on March 26, 2010 at 5:30 pm

Actually it's' "this is Alberta, not Canada", and unfortunately not true. Yet.

Thanks to an historically ignorant population (thanks post WW2 teachers) Canada's Human Rights act and the so-called Charter of Rights are restraints upon the citizenry by the Government rather than the other way around. Our rights are determined by Human Rights Commissions, which like Star Chambers, require you to prove your innocence, do not allow "truth" as a defence and are capricious in who they prosecute. The Coulter speaking tour has nothing to do with Coulter or what she has to say. It is all about the lack of Canadians understanding human rights are only endangered by Government and that human rights do not come from Government. Like their unemployment insurance, medicare and all the other myriads of human "rights" passed on by Government, Canadians will sell their liberty to the highest bidder. One day it will occur to them they are merely slaves. All their decisions in life are mandated by the Government.

You are right. The so-called " charter of rights" is nothing more than an excuse for bigger government and social engineering. It is a hideous trudeaupian monstruosity and a stake should be driven through its heart. We live under soft communism. Real rights are: property rights, free speech, the right to bear arms, etc. What about the right not to pay income tax? While the left bleats about group rights and plays identity politics, we have lost, and keep losing genuine rights.

Advice to MS Coulter:
'It is best to be quiet and be thought an ass than to open your mouth and remove all doubt' even if you are a hot blond.

Kaafaa on March 27, 2010 at 7:34 am

I'm glad things went well in Calgary. Personally, I have no real interest in listening to her, mostly based on political commentary picked up over the last couple of years. But the kerfufal in Ottawa drove my interest higher. I researched a little more, but came away no more interested in what she has to say. She reminds me of one of those people that speaks with such authority and conviction that it appears false and contrived to me. It is my view that in many cases she really doesn't know what she's talking about, I mean real factual details, and the biggest interest to her is her audience reaction – she loves to push buttons and watch the ire rise up above the crowd, elevating "her" in some magical way. No thanks, a little too full of herself thanks.

Ezra levant is an awful person who doesn't protect the free speech of anyone but those who share his views. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, will dish it out but will allow others to do the same, which is something I can respect and support.

Ezra Levant is a complete hypocrite, and he should not be allowed to speak because one of the requirements of Free Speech is that you must afford the same right to those with opposing views. This is something that Ezra Levant cannot and will not do. And that's what prevents his stand from being about Free Speech, and turns it into "I'm Ezra and want to say whatever I want" speech.

Socius (Calgary) on March 27, 2010 at 12:40 pm

Whom has Ezra tried to silence? Although I read his book, I don't claim to know his full history, but he seems to prefer confronting his opponents.

Steve M on March 27, 2010 at 4:31 pm

more like "hidden attitudes", and they claim to be a mosaic. they are a melting pot at its finest, and the US is the temperature guide.

Anne Coulter will always say whatever she wants to say about anything. If anybody wants to debate her, stay on the facts instead of “wimping” out emotionally having a tantrum fit, because then she will wipe out all the wimps and whiners intellectually. This is how she sets her mind traps or should we call them monkey traps.

Briansz on March 27, 2010 at 6:58 pm

I like how this writer decided to cherry pick one Q&A question from the many asked of Coulter. Why not mention how Ms Coulter responded to a very simply question I asked her: what was her opinion on evolutionary theory vs 'Intelligent Design'?

Did you perhaps have to gulp back a bit of embarrassment at the sudden revelation that your great conservative hero has no brain? I believe McLeans had a video camera rolling during the Q&A – why not roll out the tape for the world to see, hm?

Kevin R Brown on March 27, 2010 at 9:00 pm

Because Cosh is more interested in burnishing Ezra's credentials than actually doing fair and balanced journalism.

Kaplan on April 1, 2010 at 6:15 pm

I would not mind the likes of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn if their interest in crushing Canadian hate laws were not so self-serving. The day when either of them comes out demanding the Canadian government offer an apology to Ernst Zundel for his Jew hating propaganda or even, to a lesser extent, George Galloway for wanting to come to Canada to speak about Israeli imperialism, will be the day when their stand should be taken seriously.

I went as a citizen reporter and what I saw outside was orderly and calm. To profile the demonstrators I saw someones brother someones sister someones friend someones mom and even someones dad. . . and many concerned students. What I saw inside was two rightwing divisionists preaching to the converted and curious group of older white affluent people who were first seated around the podium for the benefit of the cameras. . .self – promo 101. Coulter is famous for hate, and Levant is famous for hate speech. As far as Alberta becoming stste 51 … when they can pry it from our cold dead Canadian hands.

The component of Ezra's introduction for Coulter that rang a little false was the civic self-congratulation. “This is Calgary, not Ottawa,” he bellowed, inducing positively demented applause. “We're interested in a diversity of ideas, debated vigorously and freely. Places like the University of Ottawa talk about diversity, but they don't actually mean it, do they?”
=========

It is interesting to note that even Ann Coulter talked about the lack of ethnic diversity in the audience. How the city (audience) was overwhelmingly white.

Tim on March 28, 2010 at 1:04 pm

I think the most positive thing that comes from this is that, whether or not you agree with whether she should be allowed to speak without people protesting outside, there seems to be an overwhelming belief that she is a nutcase whose opinions are mean spirited and that she should not be taken seriously. This contrasts with what many people in the US think of her.

Good on Calgary for hosting Ann Coulter. Not that I always (or even often) agree with her point of view. However, at the end of the day, I support free speech. We are all past the age of majority. Surely we can allow a point of view to be expressed, and refute it if necessary.

Almost Done!

Please confirm the information below before signing up.

{* #socialRegistrationForm *}
{* socialRegistration_firstName *}
{* socialRegistration_lastName *}
{* socialRegistration_emailAddress *}
{* socialRegistration_displayName *}
By clicking "Create Account", I confirm that I have read and understood each of the website terms of service and privacy policy and that I agree to be bound by them.